Law & Disorder —

“Going commando” on the TSA

There's a movement afoot to opt out of the new airport body scanners this …

On November 11, the relentlessly upbeat Transportation Security Administration (TSA) blog discussed the newly "enhanced" airport security pat-downs that would soon be coming to a groin near you. "It just makes good security sense," said TSA's "Blogger Bob." His commenters did not concur.

"The next time I fly, I'm wearing my trusty kilt," said one—and we're assuming that he's a true Scotsman.

This was an idea too good not to receive wider exposure (no pun intended), and it was naturally soon paired with the idea of a "National Opt-Out Day" to take place this week on November 24, the day before Thanksgiving. The idea is for a mass opt-out of the new AIT body scanners that can see through clothes, with participants choosing instead to have the more invasive pat-down.

The goal, as one website organizing the event put it, is for families to end up the next day "around the dinner table, eating turkey, talking about their experience—what constitutes an unreasonable search, how forceful of a pat down will we allow on certain areas of our body, and that of our children, and how much privacy are we will to give up for flying? We hope the experience then propels people to write their Member of Congress and the airlines to demand change."

But other groups are just as interested in humiliating the TSA agents doing an unpleasant job, hence the kilts. James Babb, a cofounder of We Won't Fly, encourages people to get a pat-down on November 24 and "wear the kilt. Leave your phone on record. You could be the next YouTube star. These (TSA) people need to be humiliated. What they are doing is inexcusable."

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg had a similar take: "It's a one-word idea: Kilts. Think about it—if you're a male, and you want to bollix-up the nonsensical airport security-industrial complex, one way to do so would be to wear a kilt. If nothing else, this will cause TSA employees to throw up their hands in disgust. If you want to go the extra extra mile, I suggest commando-style kilt-wearing. While it is probably illegal to fly without pants, I can't imagine that it's illegal to fly without underpants."

The idea here is that "opting-out saves you exposure to radiation, and allows a federal government employee to share in your humiliation." Fed-up TSA agents may join the public in demanding that this approach to security be scrapped, or at least modified.

The kilt-wearing idea has spawned a variety of even more inventive ways to humiliate the TSA, several involving excrement, bodily fluids, or Viagra, most of which sound unpleasant both for the patter and the pattee.

How the TSA handles a true Scotsman

Are these the sort of situations covered in TSA pat-down training? We hope so, if only for the sake of all those TSA agents who will face the kilt-wearing crowds this week. But TSA won't actually say how it handles a "true Scotsman" during a pat-down; we asked and were told that this is a "specific security procedure" and thus cannot be discussed.

So we went to Reddit instead. "You will be taken to a private area with a witness (another TSA of same gender or a police officer) and you will be given a plastic/paper sheet/blanket to hold around your legs, you will then be asked to lift your kilt to a certain height, still completely covered by the sheet you are given, and then the patdown will be performed," wrote one commenter, who may or may not have any idea what he's talking about.

While we're waiting for that first viral video of a kilted pat-down to make someone a star, TSA head John Pistole would like everyone involved in opt-out day to know just how "irresponsible" they're being.

"On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that may prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives," he said in statement sent to Ars. "After coming to TSA with 26 years of intelligence and law enforcement experience at the FBI, I understand the serious threats our nation faces and the security measures we must implement to thwart potential attacks. This technology is not only safe, it's vital to aviation security and a critical measure to thwart potential terrorist attacks."

Though given the TSA's penchant for trying to stop the last terrorist attack, we're more than a bit concerned about what happens when a miscreant decides to smuggle a plastic explosive onto a plane by stuffing it in a body cavity.

277 Reader Comments

Refused the backscatter x-ray at National Airport (DCA aka Reagan) two weeks ago.

Pat-down was mostly cursory - the TSA employee went up & down my legs twice, but certainly didn't go for "resistance" in the groin area - and ... wait for it ... I didn't go through the metal detector. They just opened a side gate and walked me through to the pat-down area. wtf people?

While I'm against this new invasive attempt to "keep us safe" by the TSA, I really don't think the way to express our disliking for this is by taking it out on the TSA agents who are mostly just good people try to do their jobs. I think just having the National Opt-Out Day is enough, no need to wear a kilt or take Viagra.

There needs to be a joke about this being a no-win scenario.... then a video blogger talking about their own personal "Kobayashi Maru" and how a TSA operative decided to "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."

Obviously, the perfect ending would be an overhead camera view of them screaming: "KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!" once the TSA agent meets "resistance"...

As the security at the airports becomes more invasive it makes a joke told by the south park episode more and more prevalent.

The joke was that Mr. Garrison invented a machine that travels a few hundred miles an hour, gets 500 miles to the gallon of gasoline and is extremely safe. However, this machine is controlled by a device up your butt, in your mouth, and two more devices you must stroke with your hands to operate.

People in line to buy the machine are talking and say something like, "All that just to get to where your going?" and a response of, "Well, its better than what you have to go at the air port."

The last sentence of the article makes me wonder how long it will be before a cavity check will also be required.

"Though given the TSA's penchant for trying to stop the last terrorist attack, we're more than a bit concerned about what happens when a miscreant decides to smuggle a plastic explosive onto a plane by stuffing it in a body cavity."

I owned an expensive Utilikilt that was misplaced about 2-3 months later. It was procured on my honeymoon to Seattle when I ran across the Utilikilt store, I ran into a guy in the airport wearing his kilt. It went missing in a move but I still have a hard time believing something like that was misplaced. Spent a lot of money on it too!

I echo the sentiment in the last line, its like network security, you block one hole they'll find a way around it, but at some point security prevents the ability of a person to complete the task whose ability to do so is what the security is supposed to protect and becomes self defeating. It's simply not worth it, there is just going to have be some accepted risk in life, given what could happen driving to the airport, I think the current risk without the nude scans and demeaning pat downs is more then acceptable.

If I was a terrorist I'd stuff the explosive in somebody else's body cavity.

I don't see why they don't skip hiding the explosives altogether. Forget the plane--you can kill a hell of a lot more people with two or three bombs scattered about the security line on a busy travel day.

The thought of dying in a plane is terrifying, but imagine worrying about whether or not you make it onto the plane in the first place because of “11/25.”

Hey, I've got a brilliant idea... why not get the Feds out of airline security entirely and just hold airlines liable for whatever happens to their flights or their airplanes along with making them have a bond requirement proportional to their flight volume?

Refused the backscatter x-ray at National Airport (DCA aka Reagan) two weeks ago.

Pat-down was mostly cursory - the TSA employee went up & down my legs twice, but certainly didn't go for "resistance" in the groin area - and ... wait for it ... I didn't go through the metal detector. They just opened a side gate and walked me through to the pat-down area. wtf people?

But, in general, why would they put you through the metal detector? The patdown is what they do for people that fail the metal detector, meaning that if you're already getting the patdown the metal detector is entirely unnecessary.

Terrorists attacking the US will probably never go the airplane route again.

Plant a suicide bomber in a rural farmer's market or at some mid-sized city's celebration and we'll get to see what those invasive procedures feel like all the time.

What about us that aren't afraid to die for our liberty? I'm not afraid of terrorists bombing the plane I'm on. If it's happens, it'll really, really suck, but that's better than letting the government feel up my junk with little option to go around that.

And, yes, I already avoid flying due to the previous security theatre hassles.

If I was a terrorist I'd stuff the explosive in somebody else's body cavity.

I don't see why they don't skip hiding the explosives altogether. Forget the plane--you can kill a hell of a lot more people with two or three bombs scattered about the security line on a busy travel day.

The thought of dying in a plane is terrifying, but imagine worrying about whether or not you make it onto the plane in the first place because of “11/25.”

The fact that we haven't seen this tactic yet suggests that the terrorist threat is far smaller than your government would have you believe.

I don't see why they don't skip hiding the explosives altogether. Forget the plane--you can kill a hell of a lot more people with two or three bombs scattered about the security line on a busy travel day.

The thought of dying in a plane is terrifying, but imagine worrying about whether or not you make it onto the plane in the first place because of “11/25.”

The reality is that these 'naked photo scanners' are not designed to detect explosives. They are only designed to detect high-density objects like metal.

Functionally they provide no additional 'security' over a plane jane metal detector.

It's all a lie. There is no cake. There is no security.

If you wear your explosives of the correct type in the the correct way then you could walk right through these full body scanners and they would not have a chance at detecting the explosives.

The TSA is not fighting it to improve security. They are fighting it because these scanners cost 300 billion dollars to implement, require a 10 percent increase in personal to operate them, and have a yearly operational expense of 340 billion dollars. They don't want to look like jack asses after throwing nearly a trillion dollars at SOMETHING THAT IS FUCKING WORTHLESS.

Blah blah blah. I'll say it again- there are definitely dumb policies that TSA has implemented, but backscatter devices are NOT in that list. Anyone with a brain can understand there is real benefit to eliminating a serious potential place to hide weapons. Yes, terrorists can still shove bombs up their asses but you have to admit that forcing them to go that route makes it significantly more difficult to carry off. Isn't that the point? (The debate over proof of safety and cost/benefit is still valid, but like the elections, no one bothers focusing on those real issues, and instead make claims that this is in the same ballpark as banning printer cartridges.)

Refused the backscatter x-ray at National Airport (DCA aka Reagan) two weeks ago.

Pat-down was mostly cursory - the TSA employee went up & down my legs twice, but certainly didn't go for "resistance" in the groin area - and ... wait for it ... I didn't go through the metal detector. They just opened a side gate and walked me through to the pat-down area. wtf people?

Refused the backscatter x-ray at National Airport (DCA aka Reagan) two weeks ago.

Pat-down was mostly cursory - the TSA employee went up & down my legs twice, but certainly didn't go for "resistance" in the groin area - and ... wait for it ... I didn't go through the metal detector. They just opened a side gate and walked me through to the pat-down area. wtf people?

But, in general, why would they put you through the metal detector? The pat-down is what they do for people that fail the metal detector, meaning that if you're already getting the pat-down the metal detector is entirely unnecessary.

Apparently you fail to understand the root of this topic entirely. You're thinking of the old rules. This article discusses the new rules designed to screen for non-metallic explosives or weapons, where everyone must go through the scanner or an enhanced pat-down. DCA has implemented the new rules apparently.

But I also think people who complain about every security measure need to start coughing up ideas of their own.

You can't expect this to go away with nothing to replace it.

Most of the folks at flyertalk (I'm too on-again-off-again to consider myself worthy to put myself in the same category as Spiff, et al) have long been advocating alternative as opposed to elimination of security. Most folks there advocate the continuation of effective anti terror initiatives - hardened flight deck, armed pilots, no negotiation policy, passenger retaliation. They also encourage the use of effective security measures - WTMD, Puffer, ETD, dogs. What they oppose is the stripping of Constitutional protections and ineffective measures parading as Security Theatre.

I concur with them. Instead, we are abandoning WTMD in favor of radiation, dumping improperly specced and tested Puffers in favor of Chertoff-backed pornotrons, ineffectively using ETD in favor of retaliatory measures, and ignoring the best explosive detection system on the planet.

I favor men actually forgoing kilts on NOOD. I'd rather they go commando while wearing a dress and a bit of makeup. You think the Smurfs would have discomfort? Wait until Smurfette runs into some unexpected body parts.

Refused the backscatter x-ray at National Airport (DCA aka Reagan) two weeks ago.

Pat-down was mostly cursory - the TSA employee went up & down my legs twice, but certainly didn't go for "resistance" in the groin area - and ... wait for it ... I didn't go through the metal detector. They just opened a side gate and walked me through to the pat-down area. wtf people?

But, in general, why would they put you through the metal detector? The patdown is what they do for people that fail the metal detector, meaning that if you're already getting the patdown the metal detector is entirely unnecessary.

I was not wanded. The TSA people were a bit confused on SOP when I refused the backscatter (or "opted out," as they referred to it) and I heard one mumble to another "um aren't they supposed to go through the metal detector" and the other guy basically threw a "whatevs."

But that's a good point about patdowns happening after metal-detector-failure, I hadn't thought about that. I was mostly going on what I heard one guy say to the other, and my assumption that "backscatter opt-out pat-down" was categorically different from "post-metal-detector-beep-patdown".

The TSA is not fighting it to improve security. They are fighting it because these scanners cost 300 billion dollars to implement, require a 10 percent increase in personal to operate them, and have a yearly operational expense of 340 billion dollars. They don't want to look like jack asses after throwing nearly a trillion dollars at SOMETHING THAT IS FUCKING WORTHLESS.

It's all for show. It provides no additional security AT ALL.

They are morons and dishonest. They are incompetent and they know it.

THAT is what it's really about.

I'm against the scanners as well, but I'm gonna have to ask for a citation for the numbers you're throwing around. Unless its just meant to be hyperbole.

If you dont like the scanner because of radiation fears, you;re an idiot, need to read some data, or have simply bought into FUD. It's 0.02mrev to get scanned. That's about 2% of the radiation you get in a day just be living on the ground and easting organic food. Each hour in the air exposes you to a full mrev. It takes 250,000 mRev over your lifetime to even raise your cancer risk 10% (you get about 300 a year normally) This is so negligible, its in the category of irrelevant. If you STILL refuse after learning this, you're no longer an idiot, you're a moron.

If you refuse the scan because it's invasive, then you can simply never again see a doctor for a routine checkup, you can never wear a bikini in public, and you certainly can never again see a Gynecologist. This is a fuzzy, B&W image designed not to see you, but to see dense materials you're wearing under your clothes. The poor quality image of some poor sap has to see over and over of people (trust me) he never wants to see naked is a poor comparison to seeing you even in simply revealing clothing, let alone a bathing suit. Those TSA folks are also psychologically screened for that job, for which I can promise your doctor not only isn't, but they actually know you personally, and they blab about it to everyone in the office. Turst me, I did IT for hundreds of doctors, they are some of the worst people in the world about talking behind your back, and even a simple physical is 10 times more invasive than this machine.

If you're doing this simply to piss off the TSA agents, keep this in mind: I can come be a bad customer in your establishment any time I want too. They earned that job, long before they knew they'd be feeling up every fat bitch who decided at the last second to be self conscious. These people have a SUCK JOB, and you're an asshole making it worse, and holding up the line for the rest of us. Also, trust me, anything you can do to offend them, they have the legal right to do SO MUCH WORSE to you. Tell a cop he;s a pig and he'll gut your car looking for "suspected" drugs and leave you with the bill, all completely legally. Piss off a TSA agent, openly to his face, you will get a very personal exam indeed. hope you;re lawyer's on speed-dial so he can laugh at you after the fact and give you a $500 bill for the chuckle after he turns down your request for filing charges.

Refused the backscatter x-ray at National Airport (DCA aka Reagan) two weeks ago.

Pat-down was mostly cursory - the TSA employee went up & down my legs twice, but certainly didn't go for "resistance" in the groin area - and ... wait for it ... I didn't go through the metal detector. They just opened a side gate and walked me through to the pat-down area. wtf people?

But, in general, why would they put you through the metal detector? The pat-down is what they do for people that fail the metal detector, meaning that if you're already getting the pat-down the metal detector is entirely unnecessary.

Apparently you fail to understand the root of this topic entirely. You're thinking of the old rules. This article discusses the new rules designed to screen for non-metallic explosives or weapons, where everyone must go through the scanner or an enhanced pat-down. DCA has implemented the new rules apparently.

I wasn't referring to the level of pat-down he received (which should have been greater, given the new policy, since he refused the AIT).

But re-read my post. I was responding to only one part of his post, which was his amazement at not going through the metal detector. Nothing more. I'm saying that of course he didn't go through the metal detector, he was already getting a pat-down. Pat-downs, both the new "vigorous" ones and the old cursory ones, have always been what happens after you set off the metal detector...so why on earth would they bother to put you through the metal detector if you're already getting the pat-down?

The reality is that these 'naked photo scanners' are not designed to detect explosives. They are only designed to detect high-density objects like metal.

Functionally they provide no additional 'security' over a plane jane metal detector.

It's all a lie. There is no cake. There is no security.

If you wear your explosives of the correct type in the the correct way then you could walk right through these full body scanners and they would not have a chance at detecting the explosives.

The TSA is not fighting it to improve security. They are fighting it because these scanners cost 300 billion dollars to implement, require a 10 percent increase in personal to operate them, and have a yearly operational expense of 340 billion dollars. They don't want to look like jack asses after throwing nearly a trillion dollars at SOMETHING THAT IS FUCKING WORTHLESS.

It's all for show. It provides no additional security AT ALL.

They are morons and dishonest. They are incompetent and they know it.

THAT is what it's really about.

I've read a couple articles where TSA officials are asked about demonstrations of these things missing fake bombs on researchers, and they usually try to change the subject to how good these scanners are at finding drugs. I don't give a crap about drugs. My plane isn't going to crash or explode because someone is trafficking drugs on it. Certainly an airport is as good a place as any to search for drugs in ways already legal for police to do. But airports don't deserve different rules for drug searches because drugs on airplanes don't cause any unique safety hazards.

zelanii, you obviously know nothing about radiation physics and its effects on the human body, especially in concentrated, frequent exposures.And that is assuming the machine works flawlessly every single time, which absolutely noone can guarantee.

skicow,I think it's reasonable to say that no good person would take a job that requires them to sexually assault anyone, let alone children, that have been intimidated into submission. Therefore, no good person will be harmed by measures to humiliate and demoralize the people that do take the job. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is ethical or wise, but it should eliminate your particular stated concern.